Women 'steal' money from their partners - but that's okay

Submitted by GaryB on Thu, 2006-08-31 12:13

This news story from the BBC tells how more and more women are secretly setting up bank accounts, without their husbands knowing, and stockpiling cash to ensure their own future.

It makes it pretty obvious that this is basically to secure their own futures when they decide to leave.

In other words, they take money that belongs to them both (stealing), lie and cheat and then eventually leave him.

But is this looked on in a negative way? Like hell it is. The entire article praises them for protecting themselves from those mean-old men, clever women you.

As usual, what would it sound like the other way around? If men were stealing money and storing it in secret bank accounts for the day they left their wives, I'm pretty sure they'd be portrayed as evil, selfish schemers. But not the girls.

Nice quote: ""Money controlled by women is more likely to be spent on children than money controlled by men, children lose out too," she said."

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Nearly every study that has ever been done has shown that despite men earning more women spend a tremendous amount more. So who is in control of the money if women are spending all of it? It sure ain't men!

That and this study is complete crap because many people (both genders) simply can't control money at all. For every relationship in North America where one partner is in financial control there are likely thousands of couples (if ability to handle money in a responsable manner was the defining criteria for control) where no on is in control of any money and it all just evaporates.

If anything is suggested by this article (besides the fact that some women like to steal) it is that on average men (since they have more to lose) are more responsable with money then women. After all, every man is at constant risk of losing everything (even though most don't know it) either by the state or by some disgrunteld wife/girlfriend.

Sone favorite parts of the article:

Women questioned for the survey initially claimed that they were sharing financial decisions with their partners, but admitted that there were times when they could not challenge their husband's own expenditure.

So, basically the findings of the survey are that sometimes men put their foot down and say "enough dear, bills before shoes"

Many said they were reluctant to spend money on themselves because they earned less than their partners.

Well, if all things were EQUAL wouldn't that be exactly how it should be? I mean, if you are not contributing as much why should you get the same rewards? Does your employer do this? Does a store manager get the same financial rewards as the CEO of the company he works for? If you earn less you typically work less or at a less demanding position. Why should you have the same finincial freedoms of some one who works many more hours at a much more stressfull job? If you want it to be equal girls, get a better job!

The study said that some women have less control over how they spend their money than in the past, because cash payments, such as Child Benefit, are now often paid through bank transfers.

So women apparently really do believe that CHILD benefits are exclusively for their personal spending. What he doesn't have the child to? Were you like Mary and empregnated bu GOD? This is perhaps the most misandric paragraph of the whole story. It implies (Hell, it practically comes right out and says it) that men do not love or care about hteir children and that they do not allow child benefits to be spent on children! Why should one partner have absolute say on which brand of diapers to by or what clothes to buy a child? the CHILD benefit os for the child!

Heck, even most of the comments call BS on the whole story! Only a few women seem to think the idea is just super!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Paragon on Fri, 2006-09-01 16:07

Paragon,

that's exactly right.

I got out of a 13 year marriage last year, during which my wife stayed at home (with the kids, which she wanted) and refused to go to work even when they were all at school and work was offered to her - she liked her 'lifestyle' too much. She spent and spent and spent, wracking up debts, and I had to work harder and harder to keep us afloat. As fast as I closed down one credit card, she'd get another, or empty our account on crap presents nobody needed.

When she finally did leave, she took half the assets, and left all the debt behind (and believe me, it's huge). And STILL she demands half the house value, half my pension, and whatever access to the kids she wants.

And the courts say 'hell yeah! and more, if you want it!'.

But it's not a one-off, practically every guy I talk to says the wife controls the spending - that's pretty much always been the way. Guy goes to work, slogs away all week, comes home and hands over the wage packet to the wife. Wife then typically hands him back 'pocket-money' for himself for the week. Ask your parents or grandparents, it's always been the way.

If you ask me, this article has come about because guys have become more aware of their own rights and money, and now women don't like it - so instead of facing up to equal responsibility, they simply steal it from him and lie about it, until the day they walk away complaining about their dead-beat husbands and how they never earned enough to keep them in the style to which they wanted to become accustomed.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by GaryB on Fri, 2006-09-01 23:23

It's cases such as yours that tell me not to get married and I want to thank you guys for setting me straight on what married life is like. Every married guy I've talked to has told me not to do it that it is not worth it. I like how one comedian put it: a single guy may be "lonely" but a married guy is "irritated". So it's a choice between "lonely" and "irritated" I'll go with "lonely" as it sounds better and is easier to overcome.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by masculist man on Sat, 2006-09-02 07:50